Valley Secession Group Drops a Few Names

Valleywood? Minimallia? Paradise Bluffs or Severance City?

From the affectionate (San Fernandito) to the jaded (Hellish Pit O’ Despair), there has never been a dearth of proposals for a new name for the San Fernando Valley--even when the matter of Valley secession was nowhere near the ballot.

Now, as the name game prepares to move from the parlor to the polls, cheeky monikers culled from newspaper contests and talk shows seem to be losing ground to more sober suggestions.

Valley VOTE, the group leading the cityhood bid, has until April 5 to narrow the field down to five names. The options could then be put to a vote alongside secession itself.

“Some people seem to like including the word ‘Valley,’” Valley VOTE President Jeff Brain said. “We’ve gotten ‘Golden Valley,’ we’ve gotten ‘Star Valley’ and ‘Valley of the Stars.’”

Valley of the Stars? It might work for those banners promoting the local entertainment industry that flap from light poles, but would you really want to scrawl it on your envelopes?

“Names are terribly important,” said Hal Kassarjian, a UCLA professor emeritus of marketing. “In this case, they’re selling a city. They’re also disposing of the negative baggage that Los Angeles carries by choosing a new name.”

In keeping with such a momentous task, Valley VOTE plans to send all names through a rigorous quality-control sieve. Adios, Hellholia.

First, secessionists will collect suggestions from the public via mail and telephone. They have about 60 names so far, and last week they sent fliers to schools and civic groups in an effort to round up more.

In late March, Valley VOTE will convene a committee to choose the top 25 names, which might be forwarded to a polling firm for further testing, Brain said.

The group can submit up to five names to the county’s Local Agency Formation Commission. Ultimately, if LAFCO puts secession on the ballot in November, voters who live in the Valley will choose the prospective city’s name.

Secessionists note that an early favorite is, in fact, “San Fernando Valley.” But at least one local is dead set against making the name official: the mayor of San Fernando, a small town in the northeast Valley.

“They can try to steal our name away from us, but we’d fight them,” Mayor Cindy Montanez declared.

A moment later, she called a reporter back to add another objection: The whole thing is just too darn perplexing.

“If it’s ‘San Fernando Valley,’ that means, I guess, that the city of San Fernando wouldn’t be part of the San Fernando Valley,” she said. “It’s kind of confusing, now that I think of it. I mean, maybe if they called it something else, like ‘West San Fernando’ or something.”

The dilemma has persisted for years, and attempts to solve it haven’t been pretty. Jay Leno has tossed out a few unflattering suggestions--think “Smogadena”--on national television. The Times sponsored a “Rename The Valley” contest a decade ago, crowning “Twenty-nine Malls” the winner.

Runners-up included “Rancho de los Ranchos,” “Beige-Air,” “Suburbank” and “Cute North Lemon View Forest Bog.” One reader, commenting on the local political scene, wryly suggested “[L.A. City Councilman] Hal Bernson Devel opment Corp.”

Such titles positively roll off the tongue when compared to the Valley’s original name: El Valle de Santa Catalina de Bononia de los Encinos (the Valley of St. Catherine of Bologna of the Oaks). That mouthful comes from the pages of Father Juan Crespi’s diary, penned during a 1769 expedition led by Spanish explorer Gaspar de Portola.

A generation later, the area acquired the name that stuck for 200 years when the San Fernando Mission was established in 1797. It was named for Ferdinand III, a 13th-century Spanish king who, appropriately enough, favored low taxes for his subjects. He was canonized in 1671.

These days, Valley VOTE must steer clear of classic branding pitfalls such as bestowing a name that holds unintended meaning, Kassarjian said.

That means no naming the Valley after some historic figure, he cautioned. (“Who knows,” Kassarjian mused, “maybe the guy [Ferdinand III] was mean to the Indians, and then it becomes a whole political issue.”)

Kassarjian also vetoed the perky “Valley of the Stars,” on the grounds that it projects a certain airy aura, unbecoming what would be the nation’s sixth-largest city. (“People will call it Glitter Gulch, all shine and no substance.”)

Richard Close, chairman of Valley VOTE, says many locals have suggested borrowing a page from Staples Center’s playbook. Staples, the office superstore chain, paid $100 million to emblazon its name on Los Angeles’ downtown arena. Might the Valley’s own Universal Studios consider a Valleywide deal?

Imagine it: “Universal City,” population 1.4 million, stretching from the tile roofs of West Hills to the gravel pits of Sun Valley. Would that make Ventura Boulevard the new Universal CityWalk?

Never mind that most of Universal City is not even part of Los Angeles--it’s unincorporated county land.

“To me, ‘Universal City’ is an attractive name,” Close said. “It’s a well-known name already. It’s synonymous with entertainment, and entertainment is an important part of the Valley. And they may be willing to assist us with the campaign.”

Universal Studios, which has not taken a position on secession, was notably less enthusiastic.

“We do not support the idea because the name ‘Universal City’ is specific to our property as a branded destination and is very closely associated with our business,” said Iris Gelt, vice president of external communications. “Using the name ‘Universal City’ to represent a broader area of the Valley would create confusion in the mind of the public.”

Well, then.

Cute North Lemon View Forest Bog, anyone?